List Specs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that listing is tied to the active project unless scope='org', that org entries are published APIs, that each entry carries projectId/specId for set_context, and that project context is required. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences front-load the primary behavior, then add the org alternative and the prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only listing tool, this is complete: it defines both scopes, the project-context prerequisite, and the relevant fields in returned entries. Pagination is already documented in the schema, and there is no output schema to rely on.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for skip/take/scope, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the scope parameter by explaining what 'project' vs 'org' lists, and it notes the project-context prerequisite, though skip/take semantics are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action (list) and resource (API specifications) with explicit project vs org scope, and it ties results to set_context. However, it does not name or contrast any sibling tools (e.g., list_available_specs), so the sibling-differentiation bar for a 5 is not fully met.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives concrete usage context: use scope='org' to list published APIs across every project, and scope='project' requires project context. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the conditions are clear enough for an agent to choose the right scope.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.